Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12
Transcript of Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12
![Page 1: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT
CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL
MASTER PLAN
Network and Methodology Report
January 19, 2012 Roundtable
![Page 2: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Person-throughput
comparison
![Page 3: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Person-throughput
comparison
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Existing: 3general
purpose lanes
Repurpose-a-lane: 2 general
purpose lanesplus one bus
lane
Add-a-lane: 3general
purpose laneplus one bus
lane
bus
general purpose
![Page 4: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Alternative 1: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.0
Alternative 2: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.25
Alternative 3: repurpose existing lanes in urbanized areas as a
general policy
Alternative 4: add dual lanes on entire network
![Page 6: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Alternative 1: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.0
This approach would repurpose few lanes.
Alternative 2: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.25
Alternative 3: repurpose existing lanes in urbanized areas as a
general policy
Alternative 4: add dual lanes on entire network
![Page 7: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Alternative 1: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.0
This approach would repurpose few lanes.
Alternative 2: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.25
This approach would repurpose more lanes but would require
modeling to determine the impacts on area traffic.
Alternative 3: repurpose existing lanes in urbanized areas as a
general policy
Alternative 4: add dual lanes on entire network
![Page 8: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Alternative 1: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.0
This approach would repurpose few lanes.
Alternative 2: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.25
This approach would repurpose more lanes but would require
modeling to determine the impacts on area traffic.
Alternative 3: repurpose existing lanes in urbanized areas as a
general policy
This approach would have the highest bus ridership.
Alternative 4: add dual lanes on entire network
![Page 9: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Alternative 1: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.0
This approach would repurpose few lanes.
Alternative 2: general purpose lanes have v/c less than 1.25
This approach would repurpose more lanes but would require
modeling to determine the impacts on area traffic.
Alternative 3: repurpose existing lanes in urbanized areas as a
general policy
This approach would have the highest bus ridership.
Alternative 4: add dual lanes on entire network
This approach would have significant ROW impacts and the highest
costs. There may be a problem with meeting State requirements to
minimize impervious surfaces, and the air quality impacts would have
to be determined.
![Page 10: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Traffic Group’s report for Rapid Transit Task Force:
recommends a wide range of treatments, including repurposing lanes
on some major highway segments
![Page 11: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Summary
Corridor functions: based on travel patterns derived from Master Plan
land use, but Board’s direction will be used to determine where two-
lane busways are desirable long-term
Repurposing lanes as bus lanes: creates abundant roadway capacity
without major impacts. Retaining all current general purpose capacity
while instituting bus lanes would greatly increase costs and right-of-way
impacts.
![Page 12: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Next steps
February 2, 2012: We will provide the Board with our review of the
Traffic Group’s report to the Rapid Transit Task Force
February 9, 2012: The Board will be asked to vote on a revised BRT
network to be pursued in the next phase of work that will reflect a two-
stage Master Plan effort .
![Page 13: Countywide Transit Corridors Network and Methodology Report, 1 19 12](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071602/613d70be736caf36b75d5bb5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT
CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL
MASTER PLAN
Network and Methodology Report
January 19, 2012 Roundtable